Rep. Ron Paul, the long shot candidate for president. A member of the Republican party {why I haven't a clue} who is by far more Libertarian than Republican. A man who is different from your typical politician. Who unlike Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum {did I forget anyone?} is consistent in principle and his understanding of our Constitutional foundation.

A man who could, if given a shot have a profoundly positive impact on the health of the nation. He is not beholden to the power structure in the party of R. Nor is he warmly in bed with the monied Wall Street monied interests. He understands the need for monetary reform and has been instrumental in exposing the need for oversight of the Federal Reserves. And he sees the definite and immediate need to reign in the MIC.

Paul may not be the perfect candidate. In fact it is very likely there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. After all, candidates are human and thus perfection is not possible. And, for my liberal friends out there the same would apply to Ayn Rand ... ;)

Seriously, Paul may represent the best chance to change the nation's direction and point it to a positive path for both economic and social growth. Which I suspect is precisely why the establishment, both political and business will do everything in their power to misrepresent his ideas and insure he becomes only a footnote in American political history.

He's a long shot, but he is worth taking a serious look at. That would include reading his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, in which he concisely lays out his principles and provides insight into what he would likely do if he were the leader of the free world.

Paul was recently in Newton Iowa where he visited a wind turbine blade manufacture and briefly outlined his views on limited and responsible government.

Paul, a Texas congressman with strongly libertarian leanings, argued that good-intentioned efforts by the federal government to provide food, shelter and medical care have left Americans dependent and unproductive.

“It’s well-intended,” Paul said of government social programs, “but the truth is that you have to produce in order to live better. The tragedy in our country is that we’ve changed the conditions such that it’s very hard for us to be a productive country.”

The solution, he said, is to return the state to a far more limited role that merely ensures an environment in which the free market can thrive.

Reducing federal spending is also critical, he said. To accomplish a $1 trillion cut to annual spending, Paul said he would draw down U.S. military involvements in other nations and slash defense spending. Troops now stationed in Germany, South Korea and elsewhere should be brought home and put to work in their own communities, he said.

“It has to quit,” he said of military spending. “That’s why I take a bold stand. I’d cut the spending. I’d cut the overseas. I’d cut a lot of this militarism overseas.”

Beyond that, Paul said, the United States must undertake fundamental changes in its economic and monetary systems.

“Unless we look at this as a big picture looking at currency reform, tax reform, regulatory reform in order to restore confidence in the economy, we’re going to continue to get poorer,” he said.

The message was politely received by the plant employees, many of whom came off the factory floor still wearing their safety glasses to hear him speak.

Employee Douglas Barcus, of Newton, said he didn’t entirely share Paul’s views, but appreciated his libertarian perspective and the simple fact that he was different from the typical Republicans and Democrats on the national stage.

“I know he’s been in politics a long time, but he does seem like an outsider,” Barcus said. ”He’s outside the beltway, you know? The mentality of Washington D.C. and all the politics, whether Democrat or Republican, they’re just all the same. I don’t see much of a difference anymore.”

Responding to a question about this week’s Republican debate, which was notable for the contentiousness displayed by candidates, Paul was frank about his distaste.

“I can tell you that after the first 45 minutes I was tempted to walk off that stage,” Paul said. “I thought it was disgusting.”

The number of debates and their tenor indicate a demand for theatricality in politics, Paul said, that perhaps indicates a lack of seriousness about the process.

“These TV shows where they beat up on each other, I think that’s what the people like,” he said. “They enjoy this. They think it’s a game they’re playing.”

13 comments:

Santorum is certainly every bit as "consistent" as is Ron Paul, and he's probably got about the same chance as Paul to win the nomination. This is not a libertarian country. It would take a lot of work to even get it moving in that direction. Sadly, the lion's share of the libertarian movement in this country is made up of conspiracy theorists and druggies. Not much of a foundation.

With all due respect Chuck, I have been involved in the libertarian movement (not to be confused with the Libertarian Party) in this country for many decades and I don't know any conspiracy theorists and very few druggies. (most of whom were Democrats and Republicans)

So I disagree with your generalization, which frankly sounds more like the wishful thinking of a big government conservative who sees that neo-conservatism has run it's inevitable course.

Santorum is at 1% for a reason and Paul is at 10%, so I guess the country is more libertarian than you would like to admit.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would mean a fundamental change in direction for the country instead of just slowing down the drift into oblivion.

I would say that Dr. is more of a Republican than any of the other candidates! See why!But I do believe our Govt is capable of some of the things that "Conspiracy theorists" have talked about. Look at the Pentagon papers for example! To think the Govt is your friend, is naive! look to the current administration in the White House, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, ect... Sure many conspiracy theorists aren't very well wrapped. And I would venture to say that many theories come from some in the Govt!Dr, Paul is more than just consistent, he is also the only one that speaks about returning our nation to the foundation on which it was laid.. The Constitution!Well said Grant Davies!

", I have been involved in the libertarian movement (not to be confused with the Libertarian Party) in this country for many decades"

And I've never heard of you. The face of the libertarian movement is the Libertarian Party and that party has essentially branded itself the party of vice. I used Santorum as an example of consistency, not of popularity. Paul has been running for President since forever and he hasn't won a single primary that I can recall. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you really believe Ron Paul is the "only" candidate who can save us from this oblivion, you owe it to yourself to move to another country while there is still time, because Ron Paul ain't about to win jack shit and you can take that to the bank.

Gee Chuck, I've never heard of you either. I never claimed to be well known, only involved.

And to correct you once again, the Libertarian Party is most definitely NOT the face of the libertarian movement. The fact that you seem unaware of the other organisations, which in many cases pre-date that party, explains your ignorance of the subject matter.

Please keep in mind when pining for Santorum or other saviors of virtue that putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of day care.

As to fleeing the country, I won't be doing that. There would be nowhere to go even if that was my tendency, which it is not. So I'll just stay here and continue to fight for liberty as I have been doing for about the last forty years of my life.

And even if you are correct that Ron Paul or someone like him will not win and therefore we will have no fundamental change in leadership or the direction of the country, the worst that can happen is that I will have to watch (along with you) as the country drifts further into wilderness of failed big government chaos.

I'm with you on one thing, Santorum has been consistent, consistently wrong. Just like all the other Neo-Cons and liberal Democrats.

If we elect any of the other Republican contestants we will just have different clowns appearing in the same circus.

The problem with your entire argument is that it's based on the false premise that anyone but Ron Paul might as well be a democrat. I reject that because I prefer reality to Libertarian Party platitudes. I don't fault anyone for being a Paul supporter in theory, but this blind allegiance to the guy is just creepy. If he's our only hope, we have no hope.

That said, no single person is going to do anything meaningful, least of all Ron Paul. It's going to take lots of elected people who oppose the agenda of the left. That won't happen as long as the so called libertarians in this country run around like a bunch of drooling idiots saying that republicans and democrats are all the same.

"I'm with you on one thing, Santorum has been consistent, consistently wrong."

He and Ron Paul agree on about 75% of the issues. Are you even trying to be taken seriously? That is a crystalline example of why my respect for the intellectual integrity of paultards wanes with each passing day. It's nothing but mindless hyperbole from you guys. Hell, I actually like Ron Paul, but I'm realistic about what his chances are. His worst ambassadors are his ardent supporters.

I'm realistic about his chances as well. You threw out a straw man as if I said he was going to win and then knocked it down. Pretty weak.

Of course then the inevitable name calling and personal attacks begin.

Big government liberals and conservatives are kindred spirits in that they, like Santorum, Romney, Obama, etal. believe that government is the answer.

And since I have no blind allegiance to Paul, but only believe that he is the only one of the candidates left standing who has a chance of leading to the fundamental changes I believe are necessary, you have gone off the deep end.

In fact, I think there could be many individuals who might be better candidates than Ron Paul, but none has thus far come forth.

It's about freedom, not people. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility, not personalities or political parties.

I don't think this country needs another GWB or Obama or like thinkers, so we differ.

But this conversation has gone and will go nowhere. So continue to rave and insult those who disagree with you, and I'll continue as I have been doing for years.

But I'll give you some advice in parting which will in all likelihood be resented, you might want to stop thinking in generalities and actually do some research on topics before you make those sweeping statements about people and ideas.

Feel free to do a search on this site of my name and you will find some of my articles which have been published here. Or perhaps visit my own site where you can become familiar with what I actually think and say, rather than what you think it might be without knowing.

"I don't think this country needs another GWB or Obama or like thinkers, so we differ. "

You bet your ass we do, Sport. One of us is able to use reason instead of emotion. If you think George Bush and Brakabama are "like thinkers", you are either mentally retarded, or a brainwashed zombie Lewnatic. You people don't even have ideas. You have lines. You don't discuss. You recite. Straw man? Really?

Before you ever deign to give me any advice, first demonstrate you possess even a shred of intellectual honesty. You are the reason Paul can't win anything outside of his congressional district. Next time you're all pissed about the irrelevance of Ron Paul, remember it's because of YOU. His supporters are the main reason he's considered a nut by the vast majority of voters.

Aside from my support running in the republican party the point of my post was to get more people engaged and talking about the real issues rather than the vitriolic hyperbole we have become accustomed to and programmed to accept.

At 59 years of age, and having followed as well as having been active in politics at the local level I can only say I've never witnessed such a sorry state of affairs in national politics........................................

When someone states the obvious and you call them "hateful, nasty troll", what words would you use to describe that person? Yourself, I mean.

Heroic? Insightful? Hateful, nasty, troll maybe?

I wish you people would quit proving me right about you.

Since some of you are all feel-goody about giving advice, I'll give you some that is much better than any delivered in this thread:

If what you believe can't withstand any intellectual scrutiny at all without you pissing your pants and attacking the critic as some sort of monster, then what you claim you believe is either something you deep down know to be false or something you don't even believe at all, but instead take as a matter of blind faith.

"When compiling sharp conservative thoughts and takes for my Morning Jolt newsletter late at night and early in the morning, I find myself coming back to Left Coast Rebel again and again." -Jim Geraghty, National Review"Hey Tim, I appreciate the kind email and the plug on your site. It’s rare that my first feedback isn’t hate mail from a disgruntled statist! You carry on too – we’ve got our work cut out for us." -Tad DeHaven, Cato Institute"Thanks so much for all YOU do for liberty and individual rights. I appreciate your strong voice for capitalism. We're changing the culture -- keep it up!" -Jonathan Hoenig, Fox News"Congrats Tim. You have arrived." -GatewayPundit"Before we sell California to China or go Lex Luther on the San Andreas Fault, let's be sure to save the Left Coast Rebel." -Barack Obama's Cousin, Milton R. Wolf, M.D.

"I like LCR because it seems like more thought goes into posts there than at many other blogs that focus more on horse-race politics." -Nate Nelson, United Liberty

Legal Ease

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
The opinions expressed are those of the respected authors alone. Any material posted here is made available for educational and informative purposes, and as such constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C., section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this blog is provided without profit for benign research and educational purposes.